All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
To: DRI Development <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>
Cc: "Intel Graphics Development" <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Daniel Vetter" <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>,
	"Dave Chinner" <david@fromorbit.com>, "Qian Cai" <cai@lca.pw>,
	"Thomas Hellström" <thomas_os@shipmail.org>,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	"Jason Gunthorpe" <jgg@mellanox.com>,
	linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org,
	"Maarten Lankhorst" <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>,
	"Christian König" <christian.koenig@amd.com>,
	"Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@infradead.org>,
	"Daniel Vetter" <daniel.vetter@intel.com>,
	"Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@infradead.org>,
	"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@redhat.com>, "Will Deacon" <will@kernel.org>
Subject: [PATCH 3/3] locking/selftests: Add testcases for fs_reclaim
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2020 10:54:44 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201120095445.1195585-4-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201120095445.1195585-1-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>

Since I butchered this I figured better to make sure we have testcases
for this now. Since we only have a locking context for __GFP_FS that's
the only thing we're testing right now.

Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: Qian Cai <cai@lca.pw>
Cc: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Thomas Hellström (Intel) <thomas_os@shipmail.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@mellanox.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org
Cc: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
Cc: "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
---
 lib/locking-selftest.c | 47 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 47 insertions(+)

diff --git a/lib/locking-selftest.c b/lib/locking-selftest.c
index a899b3f0e2e5..ad47c3358e30 100644
--- a/lib/locking-selftest.c
+++ b/lib/locking-selftest.c
@@ -15,6 +15,7 @@
 #include <linux/mutex.h>
 #include <linux/ww_mutex.h>
 #include <linux/sched.h>
+#include <linux/sched/mm.h>
 #include <linux/delay.h>
 #include <linux/lockdep.h>
 #include <linux/spinlock.h>
@@ -2357,6 +2358,50 @@ static void queued_read_lock_tests(void)
 	pr_cont("\n");
 }
 
+static void fs_reclaim_correct_nesting(void)
+{
+	fs_reclaim_acquire(GFP_KERNEL);
+	might_alloc(GFP_NOFS);
+	fs_reclaim_release(GFP_KERNEL);
+}
+
+static void fs_reclaim_wrong_nesting(void)
+{
+	fs_reclaim_acquire(GFP_KERNEL);
+	might_alloc(GFP_KERNEL);
+	fs_reclaim_release(GFP_KERNEL);
+}
+
+static void fs_reclaim_protected_nesting(void)
+{
+	unsigned int flags;
+
+	fs_reclaim_acquire(GFP_KERNEL);
+	flags = memalloc_nofs_save();
+	might_alloc(GFP_KERNEL);
+	memalloc_nofs_restore(flags);
+	fs_reclaim_release(GFP_KERNEL);
+}
+
+static void fs_reclaim_tests(void)
+{
+	printk("  --------------------\n");
+	printk("  | fs_reclaim tests |\n");
+	printk("  --------------------\n");
+
+	print_testname("correct nesting");
+	dotest(fs_reclaim_correct_nesting, SUCCESS, 0);
+	pr_cont("\n");
+
+	print_testname("wrong nesting");
+	dotest(fs_reclaim_wrong_nesting, FAILURE, 0);
+	pr_cont("\n");
+
+	print_testname("protected nesting");
+	dotest(fs_reclaim_protected_nesting, SUCCESS, 0);
+	pr_cont("\n");
+}
+
 void locking_selftest(void)
 {
 	/*
@@ -2478,6 +2523,8 @@ void locking_selftest(void)
 	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_QUEUED_RWLOCKS))
 		queued_read_lock_tests();
 
+	fs_reclaim_tests();
+
 	if (unexpected_testcase_failures) {
 		printk("-----------------------------------------------------------------\n");
 		debug_locks = 0;
-- 
2.29.2


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
To: DRI Development <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>
Cc: "Will Deacon" <will@kernel.org>,
	linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org,
	"Daniel Vetter" <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>,
	"Intel Graphics Development" <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	"Dave Chinner" <david@fromorbit.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@infradead.org>,
	"Christian König" <christian.koenig@amd.com>,
	linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	"Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@infradead.org>,
	"Jason Gunthorpe" <jgg@mellanox.com>, "Qian Cai" <cai@lca.pw>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	"Daniel Vetter" <daniel.vetter@intel.com>,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@redhat.com>,
	"Thomas Hellström" <thomas_os@shipmail.org>
Subject: [PATCH 3/3] locking/selftests: Add testcases for fs_reclaim
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2020 10:54:44 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201120095445.1195585-4-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201120095445.1195585-1-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>

Since I butchered this I figured better to make sure we have testcases
for this now. Since we only have a locking context for __GFP_FS that's
the only thing we're testing right now.

Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: Qian Cai <cai@lca.pw>
Cc: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Thomas Hellström (Intel) <thomas_os@shipmail.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@mellanox.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org
Cc: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
Cc: "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
---
 lib/locking-selftest.c | 47 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 47 insertions(+)

diff --git a/lib/locking-selftest.c b/lib/locking-selftest.c
index a899b3f0e2e5..ad47c3358e30 100644
--- a/lib/locking-selftest.c
+++ b/lib/locking-selftest.c
@@ -15,6 +15,7 @@
 #include <linux/mutex.h>
 #include <linux/ww_mutex.h>
 #include <linux/sched.h>
+#include <linux/sched/mm.h>
 #include <linux/delay.h>
 #include <linux/lockdep.h>
 #include <linux/spinlock.h>
@@ -2357,6 +2358,50 @@ static void queued_read_lock_tests(void)
 	pr_cont("\n");
 }
 
+static void fs_reclaim_correct_nesting(void)
+{
+	fs_reclaim_acquire(GFP_KERNEL);
+	might_alloc(GFP_NOFS);
+	fs_reclaim_release(GFP_KERNEL);
+}
+
+static void fs_reclaim_wrong_nesting(void)
+{
+	fs_reclaim_acquire(GFP_KERNEL);
+	might_alloc(GFP_KERNEL);
+	fs_reclaim_release(GFP_KERNEL);
+}
+
+static void fs_reclaim_protected_nesting(void)
+{
+	unsigned int flags;
+
+	fs_reclaim_acquire(GFP_KERNEL);
+	flags = memalloc_nofs_save();
+	might_alloc(GFP_KERNEL);
+	memalloc_nofs_restore(flags);
+	fs_reclaim_release(GFP_KERNEL);
+}
+
+static void fs_reclaim_tests(void)
+{
+	printk("  --------------------\n");
+	printk("  | fs_reclaim tests |\n");
+	printk("  --------------------\n");
+
+	print_testname("correct nesting");
+	dotest(fs_reclaim_correct_nesting, SUCCESS, 0);
+	pr_cont("\n");
+
+	print_testname("wrong nesting");
+	dotest(fs_reclaim_wrong_nesting, FAILURE, 0);
+	pr_cont("\n");
+
+	print_testname("protected nesting");
+	dotest(fs_reclaim_protected_nesting, SUCCESS, 0);
+	pr_cont("\n");
+}
+
 void locking_selftest(void)
 {
 	/*
@@ -2478,6 +2523,8 @@ void locking_selftest(void)
 	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_QUEUED_RWLOCKS))
 		queued_read_lock_tests();
 
+	fs_reclaim_tests();
+
 	if (unexpected_testcase_failures) {
 		printk("-----------------------------------------------------------------\n");
 		debug_locks = 0;
-- 
2.29.2

_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
To: DRI Development <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>
Cc: "Will Deacon" <will@kernel.org>,
	linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org,
	"Daniel Vetter" <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>,
	"Intel Graphics Development" <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	"Dave Chinner" <david@fromorbit.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@infradead.org>,
	"Christian König" <christian.koenig@amd.com>,
	linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	"Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@infradead.org>,
	"Jason Gunthorpe" <jgg@mellanox.com>, "Qian Cai" <cai@lca.pw>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	"Daniel Vetter" <daniel.vetter@intel.com>,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@redhat.com>
Subject: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 3/3] locking/selftests: Add testcases for fs_reclaim
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2020 10:54:44 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201120095445.1195585-4-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201120095445.1195585-1-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>

Since I butchered this I figured better to make sure we have testcases
for this now. Since we only have a locking context for __GFP_FS that's
the only thing we're testing right now.

Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: Qian Cai <cai@lca.pw>
Cc: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Thomas Hellström (Intel) <thomas_os@shipmail.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@mellanox.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org
Cc: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
Cc: "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
---
 lib/locking-selftest.c | 47 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 47 insertions(+)

diff --git a/lib/locking-selftest.c b/lib/locking-selftest.c
index a899b3f0e2e5..ad47c3358e30 100644
--- a/lib/locking-selftest.c
+++ b/lib/locking-selftest.c
@@ -15,6 +15,7 @@
 #include <linux/mutex.h>
 #include <linux/ww_mutex.h>
 #include <linux/sched.h>
+#include <linux/sched/mm.h>
 #include <linux/delay.h>
 #include <linux/lockdep.h>
 #include <linux/spinlock.h>
@@ -2357,6 +2358,50 @@ static void queued_read_lock_tests(void)
 	pr_cont("\n");
 }
 
+static void fs_reclaim_correct_nesting(void)
+{
+	fs_reclaim_acquire(GFP_KERNEL);
+	might_alloc(GFP_NOFS);
+	fs_reclaim_release(GFP_KERNEL);
+}
+
+static void fs_reclaim_wrong_nesting(void)
+{
+	fs_reclaim_acquire(GFP_KERNEL);
+	might_alloc(GFP_KERNEL);
+	fs_reclaim_release(GFP_KERNEL);
+}
+
+static void fs_reclaim_protected_nesting(void)
+{
+	unsigned int flags;
+
+	fs_reclaim_acquire(GFP_KERNEL);
+	flags = memalloc_nofs_save();
+	might_alloc(GFP_KERNEL);
+	memalloc_nofs_restore(flags);
+	fs_reclaim_release(GFP_KERNEL);
+}
+
+static void fs_reclaim_tests(void)
+{
+	printk("  --------------------\n");
+	printk("  | fs_reclaim tests |\n");
+	printk("  --------------------\n");
+
+	print_testname("correct nesting");
+	dotest(fs_reclaim_correct_nesting, SUCCESS, 0);
+	pr_cont("\n");
+
+	print_testname("wrong nesting");
+	dotest(fs_reclaim_wrong_nesting, FAILURE, 0);
+	pr_cont("\n");
+
+	print_testname("protected nesting");
+	dotest(fs_reclaim_protected_nesting, SUCCESS, 0);
+	pr_cont("\n");
+}
+
 void locking_selftest(void)
 {
 	/*
@@ -2478,6 +2523,8 @@ void locking_selftest(void)
 	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_QUEUED_RWLOCKS))
 		queued_read_lock_tests();
 
+	fs_reclaim_tests();
+
 	if (unexpected_testcase_failures) {
 		printk("-----------------------------------------------------------------\n");
 		debug_locks = 0;
-- 
2.29.2

_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

  parent reply	other threads:[~2020-11-20  9:56 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 50+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-11-20  9:54 [PATCH 0/3] mmu_notifier fs fs_reclaim lockdep annotations Daniel Vetter
2020-11-20  9:54 ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2020-11-20  9:54 ` Daniel Vetter
2020-11-20  9:54 ` [PATCH 1/3] mm: Track mmu notifiers in fs_reclaim_acquire/release Daniel Vetter
2020-11-20  9:54   ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2020-11-20  9:54   ` Daniel Vetter
2020-11-20 18:23   ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-11-20 18:23     ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-11-20  9:54 ` [PATCH 2/3] mm: Extract might_alloc() debug check Daniel Vetter
2020-11-20  9:54   ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2020-11-20  9:54   ` Daniel Vetter
2020-11-20 17:19   ` Randy Dunlap
2020-11-20 17:19     ` [Intel-gfx] " Randy Dunlap
2020-11-20 17:19     ` Randy Dunlap
2020-11-20 17:31     ` Daniel Vetter
2020-11-20 17:31       ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2020-11-20 17:31       ` Daniel Vetter
2020-11-20 17:31       ` Daniel Vetter
2020-11-20 18:07   ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-11-20 18:07     ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-11-24 14:34     ` Daniel Vetter
2020-11-24 14:34       ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2020-11-24 14:34       ` Daniel Vetter
2020-11-24 15:27       ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-11-24 15:27         ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-11-20  9:54 ` Daniel Vetter [this message]
2020-11-20  9:54   ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 3/3] locking/selftests: Add testcases for fs_reclaim Daniel Vetter
2020-11-20  9:54   ` Daniel Vetter
2020-11-20 12:31   ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-11-20 12:31     ` [Intel-gfx] " Peter Zijlstra
2020-11-20 12:31     ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-11-20  9:54 ` [PATCH] drm/ttm: don't set page->mapping Daniel Vetter
2020-11-20  9:54   ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2020-11-20  9:54   ` Daniel Vetter
2020-11-20 10:04   ` Christian König
2020-11-20 10:04     ` [Intel-gfx] " Christian König
2020-11-20 10:04     ` Christian König
2020-11-20 10:05     ` Daniel Vetter
2020-11-20 10:05       ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2020-11-20 10:05       ` Daniel Vetter
2020-11-20 10:05       ` Daniel Vetter
2020-11-20 10:08       ` Christian König
2020-11-20 10:08         ` [Intel-gfx] " Christian König
2020-11-20 10:08         ` Christian König
2020-11-20 15:01         ` Daniel Vetter
2020-11-20 15:01           ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2020-11-20 15:01           ` Daniel Vetter
2020-11-20 10:14 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.CHECKPATCH: warning for " Patchwork
2020-11-20 10:16 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.SPARSE: " Patchwork
2020-11-20 10:45 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure " Patchwork

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20201120095445.1195585-4-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch \
    --to=daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=cai@lca.pw \
    --cc=christian.koenig@amd.com \
    --cc=daniel.vetter@intel.com \
    --cc=david@fromorbit.com \
    --cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=jgg@mellanox.com \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=thomas_os@shipmail.org \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    --cc=willy@infradead.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.